Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1999-02-16SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1999 AT 8:00 PM Regular Meeting: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor San Rafael City Council Paul M. Cohen, Vice -Mayor Barbara Heller, Councilmember Cyr N. Miller, Councilmember Gary O. Phillips, Councilmember Also Present: Rod Gould, City Manager Gus Guinan, Assistant City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk OPEN SESSION: Mayor Boro announced Closed Session items. CLOSED SESSION: la. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(a)) Case Name: Kerner Boulevard, LLC v. City of San Rafael Marin County Courts, Case No. 172694 lb. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(a)) Case Name: Kim Dufficy-Brown v. City of San Rafael Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Nos. SR 0098737, SR 0098739, SR 0098741, and SR 0098742 Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan announced no reportable action was taken. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: PM None. 8:00 CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilmember Phillips moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to approve the following Consent Calendar items: ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION 2. Approval of Minutes of Special Closed Session Minutes approved as submitted. Meeting of Thursday, January 21, 1999, and Regular Meeting of Monday, February 1, 1999 (CC) 3. Call for Applications for Appointments to Fill Approved staff recommendation: One Unexpired Term and Two Terms on the Board a) Called for applications for of Library Trustees to the End of April, 2003, appointments to fill one Due to Resignation of John R. Haeuser as of unexpired term and two terms January 31, 1999, and the Expiration of Terms of on the Board of Library Elizabeth H. Grasham and Robert E. Katz (CC) Trustees to the end of April, - File 9-2-3 2003; b) set deadline for receipt of applications for Tuesday, March 9, 1999 at 12:00 Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209; c) set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, April 5, 1999, commencing at 6:30 PM. 4. Call for Applications For Appointment to Fill Approved staff One Four -Year Term on the Fire Commission to the End of March, 2003, Due to Expiration of Term of Kathleen L. Devlin (CC) - File 9-2-5 recommendation: a) Called for applications for appointment to fill one four-year term on the Fire Commission to the end of March, 2003; b) set date for receipt of applications for Tuesday, March 9, 1999 at 12:00 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 1 5 0 VA 8. 0 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 2 Request for City of San Rafael Amicus Participation: (CA) - File 9-3-16 Saia v. City of Capitola Case No. H019076 Sixth District Court of Appeal Resolution Authorizing Amendment to the Noon in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209; c) set date for interviews of applicants at a Special City Council meeting to be held on Monday, March 15, 1999, commencing at 6:30 PM. Approved amicus participation. RESOLUTION NO. 10364 Agreement with Joe Leisek for Design Production RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE and Distribution of City Newsletter for Four (4)EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AND THE Additional Issues, and Expenditure of Funds (CM) SIGNING OF AN AMENDMENT TO - File 4-3-322 x 145 THE AGREEMENT WITH JOE LEISEK TO PUBLISH A QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER (Not to Exceed $46,000). Confirmation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Youth Appointees: Joel Segura and Dominique Goff (CM) - File 9-2-55 x 9-3-65 City Work Plan Review (CM) - File 237 Resolution Authorizing Extension of Audit Services Agreement With C. G. Uhlenberg for City for Fiscal Year 1998/99 (MS) - File 8-1 x R-62 Confirmed appointments of Joel Segura and Dominique Goff to one-year terms on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Accepted report. RESOLUTION NO. 10365 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT WITH C. G. UHLENBERG & CO. TO PERFORM AUDIT SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998/99. 10. Confirmation of Volunteer Program Advisory Confirmed appointments of Committee Appointees: Sarah Haynes, Angelique Sarah Haynes, Angelique Korobi, Katie Runkel, and Bernadette Payne, and Korobi, Katie Runkel, and the Reappointment of Elizabeth Grasham and Bernadette Payne, and the Vickie Hatos - All Appointments are for Two -Year Reappointment of Elizabeth Terms (MS) - File 9-2-53 x 235 Grasham and Vickie Hatos - All Appointments are for Two -Year Terms. 11. Resolution Authorizing Execution of Annual RESOLUTION NO. 10366 - Agreement With Orca Swim Club for 1999 (CS) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE - File 4-10-172 x 9-3-65 SIGNING OF THE 1999 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND THE ORCA SWIM CLUB. 12. Resolution Authorizing Agreement with Century This item was removed from the Theatres for a Loan for the Millennium Party Agenda. (RA) - File 140 x (SRRA) R-414 x (SRRA) R-407 13. Tenth Annual Farmers' Market Festival Report Approved staff recommendation: and Request for Street Closures (RA) a) Approved operation of SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 2 - File 11-19 x (SRRA) R-181 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 3 Downtown Farmers' Market Festival from Thursday, May 6, 1999 through Thursday, September 30, 1999; b) approved the following street closures: Court Street from 4:30 PM to 9:30 PM on Thursdays, from May 6th through September 30th; Fourth Street from "B" Street to Cijos from 5:00 PM to 9:30 PM on Thursdays, from May 6th through September 30th; and "A" Street between Fifth Avenue and the entry to the parking structure, and Lootens Place between Fifth Avenue and Commercial from 5:00 PM to 9:30 PM on Thursdays, from May 6th through September 30th. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: 14. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO TOM SMILEY, TRAFFIC SERGEANT, EMPLOYEE OF THE QUARTER FOR PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1998 (CM) - File 102 x 9-3-30 Mayor Boro announced this presentation would be postponed to the City Council meeting of March 1, 1999. 15. INTRODUCTION OF NEW EMPLOYEE: (PW) - File 9-3-40 PUBLIC WORKS: FRANK PRIM, DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS Public Works Director David Bernardi introduced Frank Prim, new Deputy Director of Public Works, in charge of Maintenance and Operations. Mr. Bernardi reported Mr. Prim had previously worked for the cities of Napa and Petaluma, and had also been an Electrical Contractor with his own business, and was a former member of the Seabees. Mr. Bernardi stated Mr. Prim had a lot of experience in Public Works, noting he was licensed by FEMA, having been certified in Washington, D.C. Mayor Boro welcomed Mr. Prim to the City of San Rafael, noting he had a very important job. PUBLIC HEARING: 16. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE, AMENDING SECTIONS 14.03.030 AND 14.17.020 TO MODIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT FOR KEEPING MORE THAN THREE (3) ADULT CATS, DOGS OR POTBELLIED PIGS, OR MORE THAN TEN (10) SPECIFIED BIRDS, RODENTS OR REPTILES PER PROPERTY OR DWELLING UNIT, TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS FOR ANIMAL KEEPING, TO ADD A DEFINITION OF "ANIMAL KEEPING" AND TO INCLUDE A PROVISION FOR AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING PROPERTIES OR DWELLINGS CREATED BY THE REVISED REGULATIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 6.10.010 TO ELIMINATE THE CONFLICT WITH THE ADOPTED MARIN COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL CODE REGARDING NUMBER OF DOGS ALLOWED PER PROPERTY (CD) - File 10-10 x 10-2 x 13-3 Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened, and asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Bob Brown reported the proposed Ordinance contained several changes to the City's domestic animal keeping regulations. He noted that presently, the City's enforcement of residential animals was split between the Humane Society, which enforces a Countywide limit on dogs, and the City, which allows certain types of domestic animals, and requires permits for others. He pointed out neither SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 4 the County Ordinance nor the City's Ordinance regulate cats. Mr. Brown stated the Ordinance amendments recommended by the Planning Commission and staff would regulate cats in the same way we currently regulate dogs, noting a maximum of three cats could be kept per dwelling or property, and keeping four or more cats would require the issuance of an Administrative Use Permit by staff, with notification to surrounding properties. Mr. Brown noted the Ordinance indicates the Use Permit could place restrictions on how animals are kept, to reduce impacts on surrounding properties, and to ensure humane treatment. Mr. Brown reported the Planning Commission looked at the list of animals currently exempted from the City's Use Permit requirements, and suggested the exemption be modified to allow up to three potbellied pigs, and up to ten of each of certain listed birds, reptiles, or rodents, after which a Use Permit would be required. Mr. Brown explained the Commission felt that limiting dogs, cats, and potbellied pigs to a maximum of three without a permit, and limiting the listed birds, reptiles, or rodents to ten, was a reasonable limitation, after which the City should be involved to assure the impacts of such animal keeping were controlled. Mr. Brown noted the proposed Ordinance included a three-month amortization period, to either reduce the number of animals to comply with the Ordinance, or to apply for an animal keeping permit. Mr. Brown stated there were three points which needed to be emphasized, in order to put the proposed action into perspective. First, he pointed out these provisions were not a ban on having more than three cats, just as the existing Countywide regulations did not ban having more than three dogs. He explained these regulations would simply require issuance of a permit, much as the City does now for people who work out of their home, have a day care center, or other activities that could influence neighbors. Mr. Brown stated that in the past he had conducted hearings for animal permits in other jurisdictions, and he could not recall ever having denied or limiting the number of animals, although in all cases, he did place limits on fecal and odor control, and confined the animals to the subject property. Therefore, he did not believe this had to be a "win/lose" proposition between neighbors and animal owners. Second, Mr. Brown stated such regulations were not unique, reporting three other cities in Marin limit the number of cats in a similar manner, and animal ownership in those cities, to his knowledge, had not suffered. Third, Mr. Brown stated he did not believe this Ordinance change would result in many permits being requested or issued, and would probably generate very few Code Enforcement complaints. Looking to the four agencies that have these types of permit requirements, he noted the County currently had only one "dog hobbyist" permit issued in San Rafael, and in the towns of Corte Madera and Fairfax, and the City of Novato, they could not recall the last time they issued an animal permit, particularly one for cats. Mr. Brown explained the proposed Ordinance would provide a mechanism for the City to become involved in dealing with situations that could have detrimental effects on neighborhoods. Mr. Brown stated staff had made contact with both the County and the Humane Society regarding this proposed Ordinance, noting the Ordinance would eliminate the City's reference to the Marin County Animal Control Ordinance, as it pertains to the three dog limit and the dog hobbyist permit, since the City was proposing to fold these issues into our Ordinance. He stated the City had believed the Humane Society agreed with the City doing this; however, he reported this was not the case, and the Humane Society was suggesting the City not eliminate the provisions of the County Ordinance, but rather leave them in, and eliminate the dog limit from the City's Ordinance. He explained that by doing this, the Humane Society would continue to enforce the dog restriction, and the City would not. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Brown to explain what had transpired to cause the proposed Ordinance to be brought to Council, after first having gone through hearings before the Planning Commission. Mr. Brown reported there was currently a specific situation, involving a property within the City, in which the property owner admits to keeping at least 75 cats, a third of which, as indicated by the owner, are free to roam. Mr. Brown reported this had caused some very significant impacts in the neighborhood, noting the City had tried to become involved, using existing regulations. He stated the City filed a Notice and Order in August, indicating the amount of fecal material on the property was in violation of the City's Ordinance. In addition, the Humane Society visited the property, and indicated the property had far too many cats to be a safe situation; however, there were SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 5 no regulations establishing a limit on the number of cats. Mr. Brown reported the County Health Department also became involved, finding the subject property had an amount of fecal matter that constituted a health hazard, and required that the subject property be cleaned up, which was done. However, the Health Department found that the fecal material on properties elsewhere in the neighborhood, while perhaps detrimental in some ways, did not constitute a health hazard, and there was no ability for the Health Department to deal with the situation beyond the confines of the subject property, itself. Therefore, Mr. Brown reported staff proposed modification of the City's existing regulations, so the City could assert itself as an authority figure, and attempt to bring resolution to a situation that apparently has been going on for a number of years. Councilmember Cohen felt it was clear the situation was intolerable, and he was sympathetic to the neighbors' plea for the City to become involved and attempt to remedy the situation. He asked if the City could declare this situation a nuisance, and what other vehicles the City might have that could be considered, as opposed to adopting an Ordinance that would apply to every pet owner in the City? Assistant City Attorney Gus Guinan reported the City could investigate, and if the facts supported it, file a complaint in Court to abate a Public Nuisance. He explained that in order to establish a Public Nuisance, the evidence would have to show that a condition of the private property was so injurious to a segment of the community that action must be taken to abate it. Mr. Guinan stated there were only two elements; the condition had to rise to the level that it was injuring other property and property owners, and the enjoyment of their property; and, those injured had to be a significant portion of the community. Mr. Guinan stated the real question, in this case, was whether the evidence would show that a significant number of properties, amounting to a significant portion of the community, had been affected, noting this must be shown in order for a Public Nuisance action to be maintained, as opposed to a Private Nuisance action. Mr. Guinan stated he did not know whether both of those segments would be met, nor could he give the City a definite opinion as to whether or not a Nuisance Action would be successful. Mr. Guinan pointed out a Nuisance Action, if pursued, was only as good as the evidence we have, and a decision would be made by a Judge or a Court, not by the City taking whatever administrative action it could otherwise take. Mr. Guinan stated staff had looked at the potential downside of not having sufficient evidence in a Nuisance Action, and realized, as had other cities in the Bay Area, that if we were to come up with a number, whether it be three cats, ten cats, or any other number, we would establish a "yardstick", after which a pet owner would have to obtain a permit, and the conditions imposed upon that permit would give control and supervision over what staff felt would be the very rare event of an irresponsible pet owner. Mr. Guinan noted that because of that circumstance, staff felt the best approach would be to put together an Ordinance dealing with a specific number. Councilmember Cohen noted the Councilmembers had received a number of letters questioning the legality of the City's proposed Ordinance, and the right of the City to enact an Ordinance limiting pets. He asked Mr. Guinan to respond to the question of threatened legal challenges. Mr. Guinan noted he had read the well written letter from Mr, Winograd, although he had not seen any other legal challenges. He stated he had conducted preliminary research, and believed there was no question but that the City, under its Police Power granted by Article 11, Section 7 of the State Constitution, could enact a limit such as this. He reported there were several cases, most significantly Miller v. City of Arcadia, which established and made very clear that the City had this authority. Mr. Guinan acknowledged this was not without Constitutional restraints, and while it was clear we had the power to do this, like everything else the City has the power to do, it had to be restrained within Constitutional limitations. Mr. Guinan stated, as Mr. Winograd correctly pointed out in his letter, the City had to remember the Fourth Amendment prohibits its Code Enforcement Officers or Animal Control Officers from simply walking into residences to inspect; if consent of the property owners is not obtained, the only recourse is to obtain an Inspection Warrant, which is a process the City's Code Enforcement Officers are very familiar with, and have resorted to when the need has arisen. Mr. Guinan explained, absent those Constitutional restrictions, the City did have the power to enact such an Ordinance. Community Development Director Bob Brown reported City Attorney Ragghianti had also brought to his attention that the City of Larkspur had been challenged on its dog limitation, and prevailed. Councilmember Cohen felt that to go from having no regulation to a fairly SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 6 strict and expensive regulation, in response to an extreme situation, was perhaps outside of what the Council would want to pursue. He acknowledged the agencies that regulate cats had a fairly low number; however, he referred to Mr. Brown's earlier comment that in the City of Novato, no one had applied for a permit. Mr. Cohen stated he was not sure if this meant it was not an issue, because no one in Novato had more than three cats, or whether it was not an issue because no one paid attention to their Ordinance, or bothered to get a permit. Mr. Cohen asked if staff had looked at another number or threshold, which might be applied, or if there might be a way to step this? He stated he recognized and was supportive of staff's argument that the City should not reduce the fee and subsidize the cost of time involved in issuing an Administrative Use Permit; however, he asked if, for a relatively small number of animals, we could have a lesser standard, or perhaps licensing, where the City would not have to bear that entire cost? He stated he did not feel we should require someone with four cats to get the same permit we would require of someone with a significantly higher number. He acknowledged the City now had a situation where someone was "way over the top", noting the City needed to have recourse and fairness for the neighbors, and he supported that intent. He asked if there were other cities that had dealt with this, and whether we could perhaps set the number at ten before the City set conditions that would have to be imposed? Mr. Brown stated that discussion had also occurred at the Planning Commission meeting, noting there was no scientifically correct number of cats per square feet of property, and it was really just a "gut feel", and a reasonableness test. He reported the approach taken by the City of Novato, where they require both licensing and spay and neutering of any cat that goes out of doors, had been met with a great deal of controversy, and there was also a significant cost involved with their Ordinance, for subsidizing those services. Mr. Brown stated their Ordinance had a different purpose than the one the City was looking at, and noted if we were to establish a higher threshold for the number of cats that would require a permit, he would suggest we not broach the issue of licensing below that number. Councilmember Cohen asked if it was correct that the City of Novato had not issued any permits under their Ordinance, had not had any hearings, and had not had any complaints about anyone having more than three cats? Mr. Brown stated they had not, to his knowledge; however, they have had some success in having cats licensed, and having them spayed and neutered, under their more recent Ordinance. Councilmember Heller noted earlier discussion concerning a Public Nuisance, and asked, if there was no Ordinance, could the residents in the area take the neighbor to Court under a Private Nuisance? She asked what the standards were for a Private Nuisance, and whether a City Ordinance was needed before the neighbors could do this? Mr. Guinan stated that if the condition on the subject property was such that it was directly injuring the neighbors, they could take a Private Nuisance Action, which meant they would have to go to Court. He noted the exception would be if it did not involve a significant segment of the community being affected, and involved only the immediate neighbors. Ms. Heller asked if the neighbors would have to go to Court, and bear the expense, privately? Mr. Guinan stated that was correct. Councilmember Phillips referred to the three-month amortization period. He noted the woman with the 75 cats had likely grown somewhat attached to them, and asked what would become of the 72 cats that were over the limit? He asked if perhaps there could be a phasing down period, in excess of three months, so the woman could reduce the number of cats in her household over a longer period of time? Mr. Brown acknowledged the amortization period was three -months, but noted that was to either reduce the population to conform to the limit, or to apply for a permit. Mr. Phillips noted it would probably be assumed that a permit would not be issued for 75 cats, and asked if that was a fair assumption? Mr. Brown stated he did not know whether a permit would be issued, noting that in issuing animal permits in the past, although not for such a high number of animals, a major component had been keeping the animals on the subject property, which he stated could have a huge effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Brown reported the property owner in question had made attempts to keep the animals on the property, but had been unsuccessful in doing so. He believed that, given the right materials, and with the right construction, the animals could be kept on the subject property, and he felt that might be an option worth exploring. Mr. Brown noted the other provision of the Ordinance states the Community Development Director can extend the amortization period to whatever has been found to be reasonable, and although that would involve notification of the neighbors, and holding a hearing, it would essentially provide for an unlimited amortization period, based upon reason. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 7 Councilmember Phillips asked how Mr. Brown, given that authority, would enforce the provisions of the Ordinance, and how he would apply it in this case, particularly as to whether a permit would be granted, and if so, what the conditions would be? Mr. Brown stated at this point he could only speculate; however, if there were 25 animals that went outdoors, and if the owner were to provide an entirely secured chainlink enclosure, including roofing, did not allow the animals to go beyond the property, and put controls on the removal of fecal material and odor control, then the City might be able to grant a permit for that number of animals. However, that would put the onus on the property owner to comply with those operational restrictions. Mr. Phillips asked Mr. Guinan if there were restrictions on the type of restraints to keep the cats in a particular area, such as a monetary limit or a construction limit? He also asked if such restrictions were included in the Ordinance, or whether the City was setting itself up for a trap in that regard? Mr. Guinan stated, as with any conditions applied to a Use Permit, Administrative or otherwise, the issuing agency had the legal right to impose whatever conditions are reasonably related to the use, as well as the public interest being served. Therefore, as long as the conditions were reasonably related to the entire purpose of the regulatory scheme, he felt it could be justified. Referring specifically to whether certain restraint systems would be appropriate, he stated that remained to be seen, noting they would have to be related to the conditions for which the permit was being issued, and be reasonable. For example, he stated it would not be reasonable to require an owner to build a $25,000 enclosure; however, to spend less than that, and to put some sort of restraint system in place, might well be reasonable. He stated it would depend upon the facts of a given situation, but as long as the conditions were reasonably related, he believed they could be sustained. Councilmember Miller asked who would be responsible for enforcement? Mayor Boro noted Council had received a letter from Animal Services, discussing the issue of consistency in enforcing animal control Ordinances. He pointed out the City was paying the Humane Society over $300,000 per year for their services to the City, and he felt if the City was going to entertain any kind of enforcement, whether it be by Ordinance or some other means, he would not want to see City staff attempting to do that, because he did not believe we were equipped to do so. He stated he would look for a way the City could work with those who have that responsibility, and see if they would carry it out for us. Mr. Brown reported the Animal Services Director indicated the Humane Society would be powerless to act without a local Ordinance; however, Mr. Brown noted staff had not asked whether the Humane Society, under our contract, could accommodate the additional enforcement requirement. He stated staff would pursue that issue, if Council so directed. Mayor Boro invited public comment. Penny Sommers, twenty-eight year resident of San Rafael, noted she was an animal lover, and considered herself a responsible animal caretaker. She stated she strongly opposed the proposed Ordinance, noting she felt it was unenforceable, and would pit neighbor against neighbor. Ms. Sommers did not believe everyone in San Rafael should have to suffer because a neighbors had a problem with one person, and felt the City should the people who are inhumane to their animals, and spend the money spaying and neutering. few go after for Lyn Gladstone, Director of All Creatures Animal Caring Society, did not believe the proposed Ordinance was an intelligent remedy, stating it was overly inclusive, and if passed, would seriously affect the quality of life of many of the responsible residents who own three or more cats. She noted the supporters of the Ordinance depict the situation as a health related issue, but pointed out the Health Department had found no legitimate cause to intervene in the matter. She felt this was simply a neighborhood dispute, involving a small group of individuals who were unhappy with a single homeowner, and she believed the proper forum for settling this so- called nuisance was Civil Court, not an Ordinance that was so broadly painted. Joe Marrino, resident of San Rafael, verified Council had received the letter he delivered for Sallie Kibbee, and Mayor Boro noted the letter would be kept as part of the official record. Mr. Marrino stated he felt this Ordinance would result in traumatizing thousands of multiple pet owners, such as himself, who agreed pets should be sterilized, and have pet identification tags or identification computer chips. Mr. Marrino noted he sympathized with the Las Ovejas community, and had spoken with some of the neighbors who live near Mrs. Bury (the property owner with 75 cats), and empathized with their aspect of this situation. However, he also empathized with Mrs. Bury, whom he described as performing a service. Mr. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 8 Marrino stated he had spoken with the Humane Society, and they indicated they were willing to work with the City to help in this situation. He noted if San Rafael were to enact an Ordinance similar to Novato's, requiring outside animals to be spayed and neutered, and identified by tags and chips, it would protect the animals, as well as the owners. In addition, he pointed out Novato's license fee was only $5.00, not the $370 that would be charged by San Rafael for a permit. He believed responsible pet owners in San Rafael would cooperate. Mr. Marrino stated health and cleanliness restrictions could be enforced to protect neighbors and animals alike, and he believed it would not do any good to exact punitive permit fees. Mr. Marrino noted the Ordinance contained a provision allowing the City to assign unpaid fines to the homeowners' real estate tax bills, through the County. He wondered whether this Ordinance had been designed to generate City revenue, stating he believed the proposed Ordinance was too restrictive and unfair to responsible taxpayers. Mr. Marrino stated the Councilmembers, as the responsible, dedicated representatives he knows them to be, strive every day to improve the appearance of San Rafael, noting there have been great Downtown improvements, and the correction of many Building Code violations. In addition, Council has invited new businesses, to provide quality choices for the people of San Rafael, and the citizens were very proud of all these achievements. Mr. Marrino asked the Councilmembers to keep San Rafael's Ordinances in line with fairness and reality, and avoid exorbitant fees that exact money from the pet owners, whose lives and health are enriched and extended by loving pets. He urged Council to reject the proposed Ordinance, and keep San Rafael a friendly place. Mayor Boro stated he understood what Mrs. Bury had been doing as far as sterilization and taking care of the animals; however, he asked Mr. Marrino what his solution would be to address the impact on surrounding neighbors and their right to not have cats on their property? Mayor Boro noted that had been one of the issues Assistant City Attorney Guinan had touched upon when he discussed keeping all of the cats on the property, and he felt one of the important issues was respecting the rights of the neighbors, as well as the rights of Mrs. Bury, or anyone else who chooses to keep animals. Mr. Marrino agreed there could be quite a stench with 75 animals, unless the owner cleaned -up every day. Mayor Boro stated he was more concerned with how to address the issue of a neighbor who may have a child or small dog in their yard, and cats kept running through. Mr. Marrino agreed the pet owner should take steps to contain the animals, so they do not disrupt others, or cause any problems. Councilmember Cohen noted Mr. Marrino had lauded the City of Novato's Ordinance, specifically the fact they require spaying or neutering, and licensing or tagging. Mr. Cohen asked if Mr. Marrino was aware Novato's Ordinance also imposed a limit of 3 cats and 3 dogs per household? Mr. Marrino stated he had not been aware of that. Mr. Cohen reported Novato did impose, as did a number of other communities, limits similar to what staff has proposed, and he hoped people would keep in mind it was not that staff had simply pulled these numbers out of thin air. Regarding the issue of fees, Mr. Cohen noted Mr. Marrino raised the question of whether this proposal, and the fees associated with the Ordinance, were designed to raise revenue for the City. Mr. Cohen assured Mr. Marrino that was not the case. However, he asked, if someone does something requiring a permit, such as a building permit, should the City subsidize the cost of the building inspections for that person, and should the citizens of the City pay for the Building Inspector to inspect that person's construction, or should the person pay a fee that reasonably recovers the cost of the inspections, for which they will solely benefit? Mr. Cohen believed what was being proposed in terms of fees had been identified by staff as the cost of processing an Administrative Use Permit; therefore, he did not question whether this fee was appropriate. He felt the question was whether this was the level of permit the City wanted to require. Mr. Marrino noted a building inspection was a Fee for Service, and acknowledged the City had to charge for the building permit; however, he stated the permit requirement in the proposed Ordinance was not a fee for service, and did not compare to the issue of building permit fees. He stated the Ordinance would be collecting fees for a permit from people who were not causing a problem with their animals. Mr. Marrino stated he believed people should only have to pay fees if they were being a nuisance, or incurring problems for the City or the neighbors. Community Development Director Brown clarified the only assistance the Humane Society had provided regarding this particular issue had been to meet with the surrounding neighbors and provide them with traps, so they could trap cats that come onto their property. He noted that had been the SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 9 extent of what they could do, under current regulations. Ida Passamonti stated she had not spoken with any of the people who had addressed the Council, but noted many of their comments were quite similar. She asked what was to be done with cats that are trapped on neighboring property? Mr. Brown stated he did not know the policy of the Humane Society. Ms. Passamonti felt the City had embarked upon something they were not quite sure about, while the individual pet owners were quite sure where they would stand if this Ordinance were to be enforced. Mayor Boro explained that issue was not part of the Ordinance, explaining the Humane Society's involvement with the surrounding neighbors, to date, has been to offer them traps to catch the cats; however, he pointed out that was not something the City was proposing. Ms. Passamonti referred to the immediate problem, and suggested perhaps there should be a collection of money to assist this person in maintaining the cats properly. Ms. Passamonti asked on what basis the City would determine whether or not a permit could be granted? She noted in reading Section D of the Ordinance, the permit would be granted if the City could determine there would not be any obnoxious odors, noise, etc., and if the City could not make the determination for a Public Nuisance, it would issue the permit. Ms. Passamonti stated, in this particular case, the woman would get her permit if she paid the money; however, that would hardly solve the problem of her caring for 75 cats. She felt that if the City's focus was in trying to correct the problem by adopting an arbitrary number of pets, it would not succeed; however, if the City focused on the real problem of health and safety issues, and conducted research on how to approach the problem from that aspect, then perhaps the City would have an Ordinance that would not frighten people, and might solve the problem at hand. Dr. Elliott Katz, Veterinarian, and Founder and President of In Defense of Animals, suggested that because there did not appear to be a lot of complaints regarding too many people having too many cats, it seemed the City was dealing with just one particular situation, and he did not believe people would want to be penalized by this one particular situation. Dr. Katz noted most of the people in the audience felt very strongly that the woman was doing a very compassionate thing, although on some levels, being somewhat irresponsible by allowing the cats to disturb the neighbors. He stated the City's message was clear that the woman needed to do something, and he believed the people in the audience would probably enable the woman to act, and to do whatever it takes to act responsibly. He felt it might be beneficial to table the Ordinance until the next City Council meeting, and give the people who know the woman, and who do not want to be penalized by having this kind of Ordinance passed in their community, to meet with the woman, perhaps develop a fund to build the enclosures she needs, and ensure that she acts in a more responsible manner, so the City does not have to take such a drastic approach. Dr. Katz stated the message had been sent, and he believed there were enough people in the audience who know Ms. Bury, and would work with her, to see if they can get her to act in a way that would not be an affront or a nuisance to the neighbors. He asked Council to wait and see if such a resolution could be developed by the community, without the City having to get into the area of challenging and enacting restrictive Ordinances; then, if Council sees no reasonable action being taken or proposed, they can again discuss what would be the best approach to take. Dr. Katz also reported the Humane Society, as well as his organization, were in the process of replacing the term "ownership" with "guardianship", noting many people have adopted animals, rather than having bought them, and they preferred to be thought of as acting as guardians, as opposed to owners treating their animals as property. Dr. Katz stated all of the Ordinances in Marin County were currently being changed to reflect this, replacing the word "owner" with "guardian". Councilmember Phillips asked Dr. Katz if it was practical to keep larger numbers of cats inside, and whether it was healthy for the animals? Dr. Katz stated it would depend on the size of the house, the conditions, and how much help the owner had in making sure the urine and bowel movements were cleaned up. He stated it would be possible if the owner had outdoor runs, so the animals could not go into other people's yards. However, he acknowledged there were people called "collectors", who try to do good, but end up keeping animals in over -confined spaces. Dr. Katz stated he had not visited Ms. Bury, but from what he had heard from people who care deeply about cats and other animals, they were calling her a rather angelic person; therefore, he believed she was probably treating them well, and the animals were not suffering in their current housing, because if they were, there would not have been people applauding in support of the woman. Dr. Katz stated he had seen many homes and kennels where cats could be very SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 9 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 10 comfortable having a small space, and while it may not be the optimal situation, it was better than the Humane Society having to kill the animals. Barbara Monty, a neighbor of Ms. Bury, stated the sidewalk, and front and back yards of her house were full of cat feces. She noted she and her family moved to their home during the Winter, and by the time the weather became warm, it began to smell so much that her three year old did not want to go outside. She stated every day they had to pick up cat feces from in front, in back, and the side of the house, and they were unable to use their property, noting when people come to visit, they do not want to eat outside, they cannot use their pool because it smells so bad it is nauseating, and there are flies and dead bird carcasses all over the backyard. In addition, she reported they could not have a vegetable garden, because after all the vegetables died, the soil was tested and found to be full of fecal matter, almost a foot into the soil. Ms. Monty stated it is outrageous that her three year old daughter cannot go outside; however, they do not want her to dig in the yard or touch the soil, because if children touch cat feces they can contract toxoplasmosis, which is deadly. She stated this was a serious health issue. She noted others had testified this Ordinance would be an infringement of human rights; however, she asked about the rights of her family to enjoy their property, and live in a healthy environment. She stated they were being held captive, noting they were the ones in traps and being kept in cages. She reported the neighbors told her this situation has been going on for over twenty years; therefore, she was concerned when she heard people suggest putting the Ordinance off to a future meeting, having a six-month amortization period, sending the proposal back for further review, or suggesting the neighbors bring litigation. Ms. Monty stated she believed it should be up to the City Officials to deal with this, rather than having neighbors against neighbors in Court, noting she has seen what that does to people, and she does not want that to happen in their neighborhood. She stated this was a health issue, and it was up to the City to help them out. Ms. Monty reported after she and other neighbors began making calls, the Health Department, Code Enforcement and Humane Society became involved, but they all stated that there was nothing they could do. She pointed out there had actually been five visits from Health Department officials, who agreed the situation was disgusting, but insisted their hands were tied. She asked the Councilmembers to have courage, and do something about the situation. Mayor Boro stated this was the first time the Councilmembers had heard this issue, noting he understood her frustration, and that was why they were asking so many questions. He asked for an explanation as to why, if this was a health problem, the County Health Department officials state their hands were tied, noting if there is a health problem, whether it be from a human or an animal, they should be able to deal with it. Ms. Monty stated the neighbors had been told by the Health officials they could not do anything on the neighbors' property, only the cat owner's property. Mayor Boro asked why they could not deal with the problem on the neighbors' property? Ms. Monty explained she and the neighbors keep picking up the fecal material, day after day. Mayor Boro asked why that was not considered a health hazard, on her property, caused by someone else? Ms. Monty stated she had asked why they could not stop the problem at the source, and was told the only way the Health Department could do that would be to have a restriction as to the source, which they considered to be the animal feces. Therefore, staff developed the Ordinance as a mechanism to control it. Councilmember Cohen noted an earlier comment had been made that the Health Department had found no legitimate reason to intervene, and asked if it was not that they found no reason to intervene, but that they found nothing they could enforce in the Ordinance they were charged with enforcing that would address the problem of Ms. Monty's property? Ms. Monty stated that was correct, noting they stated there was nothing they could do regarding her property, or to stop the feces from being deposited; however, they did ask, at the source, that the feces be clean up, which did happen, but lasted for only a week or so. She noted there were approximately 50 neighboring properties affected by this. Gary Ruddell, 875 Las Ovejas, stated this was a residential neighborhood, not a kennel area, or an area for a small business to house cats. He noted the problem was that even if several cats are contained in a room, the smell still has to go someplace, reporting that over the years, anyone not from the neighborhood who has come by his home is overwhelmed by the smell. Mr. Ruddell believed if someone wanted to take care of cats, it should be done where there is enough room, rather than a stamp -sized backyard. He SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 11 reiterated this was a residential neighborhood, and those wishing to raise animals should do it someplace else, because the neighbors were trying to raise their children. Jeffery Moss, resident of San Rafael, stated from what he had heard, this sounded like an intolerable situation, noting he found it hard to believe the City did not have an Ordinance to address this, and he was surprised that with fifty neighbors being affected, it did not constitute a Public Nuisance. Mr. Moss stated he was also concerned this one incident was driving a control, and setting forth a net that was too broad. He believed if the City was going to set a limit on cats, the number should be higher, noting if what the City was trying to do was rectify the neighbors' situation, it should not lump everyone into it. He agreed the City should address the neighbors' problem, but without restricting other pet owners. Mr. Moss noted one issue the proposed Ordinance did not address was the issue of foster care. He reported he and his wife have taken care of cats for the Marin Humane Society, and on a number of occasions have had five or six cats, in addition to the three or four cats they own, and they have sometimes had to keep the cats for a long time, because they required care for longer than fourteen days. He pointed out the proposed Ordinance would restrict that. He urged the Councilmembers to address the issue before them, which was the issue of the neighbors, and not restrict everyone else. Councilmember Cohen noted he, too, was shocked to discover the City had no tools to address this situation; however, he believed staff had fully explored the issue before putting Council in this situation. Mr. Cohen stated he believed the City had the right, and the obligation, to regulate when there is an impact, and asked Mr. Moss if he agreed there must be some level at which the number of cats would be an impact, and it might be reasonable for the City to regulate by asking the pet owners to come in and apply for a permit, so the City can make sure adequate protections are in place? Mr. Cohen acknowledged it might be possible for a person to have twenty cats, yet have no impact on the neighborhood, if the appropriate conditions were in place; however, he asked Mr. Moss if he agreed it was reasonable for the City to set some limit where appropriate, or was it his position the City should not think about a permit at all? Mr. Moss agreed the City had a right to limit the number of cats, although he felt setting the actual number would be a problem. He noted he could see where some people might be able to live with up to ten cats and not impact the neighborhood, although it would be entirely different if they were referring to free -roaming cats. Mr. Moss suggested the Ordinance might exempt indoor cats, which are not outside bothering the neighbors. He acknowledged there could still be problems with too many indoor cats causing odor problems, but he believed if Council were to set the limit at a number above five, they would not be destroying any neighborhoods, and if they set it above ten, they would probably be giving what most of the people were asking for. He agreed the City should have the right to regulate large numbers of cats; however, the selection of the number was what most people had a problem with, not the regulation, itself. Nathan Winograd, resident of San Rafael, stated he was concerned that pet owners in San Rafael would find themselves in violation of the law, simply because they exceed an arbitrary number of animals, even if their pets were not causing any problems. He agreed with the suggestion to exempt indoor cats, as he believed if cats were indoors and did not impact the neighbors, there was nothing to be gained by regulating them. He stated that during the planning process, several people had requested that indoor cats, or fully enclosed cats, not be part of the proposed Ordinance; however, the response was, "The Ordinance will be enforced on a complaint basis, and cats which are maintained indoors will not generate enforcement". Mr. Winograd stated that while he was addressing Council as a private citizen, he had served the community as a Deputy District Attorney for three years, and he had a problem with that view of the law, and how it relates to our society. He stated he was concerned that City staff proposed enacting an Ordinance which would impact indoor only cats, while at the same time acknowledging those cats did not impact neighbors, or interfere with the rights of the neighbors. He also felt it was inappropriate to pass an Ordinance impacting indoor only cats and closing loving homes, noting those cats had to go somewhere, and where they go in most cities is to the (Humane Society) Shelter. He stated the City would be taking cats that are paid and cared for at private expense, and shifting the cost to the taxpayers, noting for every cat that goes to the Shelter, it was another $75 to $100 the taxpayers had to bear, not to mention the aspect of increased Shelter euthanasias. Mr. Winograd stated he was also concerned with the position that someone could be in violation of the law, but not have to worry about it, because if they are an indoor cat household, there are not going to be any complaints. He stated, essentially, City staff was SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 12 saying it was all right to be in violation of the law, and as long as no one complains, there is nothing to worry about. He felt this undermined people's respect for the law. Mr. Winograd referred to foster animals, noting SB 1785 provided legal status for rescue groups, giving 501C3 rescue groups, and people who foster animals for those groups, legal status. He explained the Marin Humane Society, or any other animal shelter, can no longer, by law, euthanize an animal if there is a rescue group willing to take the animal. He noted the Ordinance defined ownership as a fourteen day feeding period, and he felt if Council were intent on passing the Ordinance, it should exempt not only indoor and fully enclosed cats, but also 501C3 rescue groups, which are fostering these animals, to the extent that they are indoor only animals, and do not impact the neighbors. Mr. Winograd stated he was also concerned about the permit requirement, noting it puts multi -cat households in a precarious position, because the permit requirements are vague, giving the Community Development Director "the discretion to impose additional conditions that are deemed necessary". He noted when one of the Councilmembers had asked what types of things would be required to obtain a permit, Community Development Director Brown responded it would be "wild speculation" as to what the requirements would be. Mr. Winograd stated he would not want to risk exposure to enforcement officials, and flag them by asking for a permit, without being aware of what his rights were to that permit. He believed that if there was going to be a permit process and an Ordinance, those requirements should be fixed, and fixed by a legislative body, such as the City Council, which is subject to public accountability, and not by someone shielded from that kind of accountability. Mr. Winograd also noted the permit requirement specifies, "all places and premises where the animal is to be kept shall be open at all reasonable times and places to the inspection of Code Enforcement officials". He stated he was offended by that, and having to open his home to inspection by a Code Enforcement official, even if his cats were not impacting the neighbors, in order to get a permit. He stated he did not believe the Constitution allowed the City to do that. Mayor Boro stated Community Development Director Brown had reported that if Code Enforcement officials were to inspect, it would be via a permit granted by the Court, and they would not just come out and ask to search a home. Assistant City Attorney Guinan explained that would be done with an Inspection Warrant, and the City would have to go to Court to obtain such a Warrant before entry could be made onto private property. Mr. Winograd asked, if it does require a Court ordered Warrant, that this be made clear in the Ordinance. Mr. Winograd suggested Council apply the Ordinance only to free -roaming cats associated with households, and not apply it to indoor only or fully enclosed cats; exempt rescue groups and those associated with rescue groups; take out the catch-all that the Community Development Director can increase or alter the requirements for a permit; eliminate the requirement that people must give up their rights to their home; and take out the amorphous requirements and make them more fixed. He stated that as long as health and humane laws are not violated, and cats are not impacting neighbors, the pet owners should be entitled to a permit, and they should have recourse if the permit is denied. Mr. Winograd asked Council to find out who was going to enforce the law and who was going to pay for it, before acting on this Ordinance; to find out what would happen to the excess cats, noting he believed many of them would be killed; and to determine whether or not the problem was widespread enough to legitimize a three -cat limit, noting he remained convinced if people were reasonable in their desires and expectations, there could be a more thoughtful approach than a ban limiting the number of cats to three. Councilmember Heller asked why Mr. Winograd wanted to exempt rescue groups, noting these could be homes or families with many, many cats? She asked if he would suggest putting a time limit on the length of time they could have cats in excess of the allowable number? Mr. Winograd stated 501C3 rescue groups involved an organization responsible enough to incorporate, and would be responsible in terms of fostering. He believed if Council categorically exempted indoor only cats, and those fostering cats indoors, we would not have the problem Council was now seeking to address, which was the impact on neighbors. Ms. Heller believed the problem was that some of these cat shops were put into private homes, and sometimes do impact the neighbors. Mr. Winograd felt that if Council limited the Ordinance to free -roaming cats associated with households, the City would reach the balance it was trying to achieve. Agnas Aquilino, a neighbor of the subject property, stated there were SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 13 problems with the cats, most importantly, health issues. She noted many of the cats did not appear to be healthy, and she believed 75 cats were too many for one person to keep healthy. In addition, she reported the stench was horrendous. She stated she loved her neighbors, and no one wanted neighborhood problems; however, they did have a problem with the issue of too many cats. She agreed the number of cats could be raised from three, perhaps to ten, noting she felt most of the animal lovers would be content with that. Ms. Aquilino stated the neighbors did not dislike Ms. Bury, noting she was a loving woman. However, they felt Ms. Bury had to understand how the situation conflicts with all the other neighbors, their lives, their friends and family, and everything that surrounds them. She stated the neighbors did not want to be selfish and tell her she could not have any cats, but they asked that she understand what they go through with the roaming of all her animals on their property. Ms. Aquilino noted that even if she were to build a large cage around her property, she did not think anyone would want that in the neighborhood, stating it would be like having an open toilet to have a big kennel with odor coming from it. Councilmember Phillips noted most neighborhood conflicts were resolved without having to come to City Hall, by neighbors talking to neighbors. He asked if the neighbors had spoken with Ms. Bury? Ms. Aquilino stated she and other neighbors had spoken with Ms. Bury, but noted the neighbors have told her this situation has been going on for more than twenty years, despite their complaints. She reported her family picks up two twenty - gallon cans of feces from their yard, twice a month, explaining that was why, when the Health Department comes to inspect, they do not realize how bad the situation is, because the neighbors cannot live with the feces, and they all scoop it up. Margot Strong, resident of San Rafael, stated she was troubled by the idea that there are " the cat people", and the people who are suffering with what is obviously a terrible situation. She agreed this was clearly a nuisance, noting fifty households was not an insignificant part of the population. She asked how the City could argue that this was not a Public Nuisance? Mayor Boro noted Assistant City Attorney Guinan had not had the opportunity to go out and view or research the issue; however, that was something he was going to do. Ms. Strong asked why the Council was attempting to pass an Ordinance before that had been done? Mayor Boro explained this had been passed by the Planning Commission and forwarded to Council. Ms. Strong asked if Council had asked about the legality of how this was to be handled? Mayor Boro stated they had, noting the City Attorney's office had stated there was case law which states what the City was proposing was valid, if they should choose to do it, and it had been upheld in the Courts. Katlyn Stranger, resident of Sun Valley, stated she came to know Ms. Bury through the Cat Caring Connection, when she had been dealing with an issue at Mt. Tamalpais Cemetery, where people dump their cats. She noted there would have been a big problem with the property being overrun by cats if Ms. Bury had not been willing to take the cats, have them spayed and neutered, and given them the proper care and attention they needed; the cats would have been euthanized. Ms. Stranger reported she had visited Ms. Bury's house, and knew Ms. Bury cared deeply about the animals, and was trying to do the best she could. Ms. Stranger felt what would be most appropriate would be some kind of mediation, where someone could intercede and help resolve the issue between Ms. Bury and her neighbors, by acknowledging and enforcing something that would work for everyone, such as having all the cats be in an enclosure on her property, or in her house. Ms. Stranger noted Ms. Bury currently had an enclosure along the side of her house, which housed many of the ferral cats that would otherwise run away and be an issue to the neighborhood; however, she acknowledged it was clear Ms. Bury needed more help in being able to contain the cats on her property. Mayor Boro stated he understood Ms. Bury's concerns; however, he noted that, like many things, the Council cannot solve all the problems of the world, such as affordable housing, although the City does try to do its share. He asked Ms. Stranger if she agreed there should be some reasonable approach to this, and agreed the impact it had on the adjoining neighbors was really an issue, and even though there was a need, there was only so much one person could do? Ms. Stranger stated it was not unreasonable to assume that; however, she noted that while it had been stated that fifty neighbors were upset by this, there was no proof there actually were fifty neighbors who were upset, and she believed that should be looked into, noting there seemed to be a much smaller group of people who were vocal about the issue. Ms. Stranger stated that as a property owner and a taxpayer, Ms. Bury had the right to have cats on her property, if they were SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 14 not going to impact the neighbors. Mayor Boro noted Council was hearing there was an impact on the neighbors, and that was what they were trying to deal with. Ms. Stranger acknowledged Ms. Bury needed a better enclosure, and perhaps a better ventilation system to deal with the smell during the Summer. However, she felt there was a difference of opinion as to how big an impact this situation was causing. Regina Heinneman, 32 year resident of San Rafael, stated she worked professionally with people and their animals in Marin County and throughout the Country, doing animal communication and counselling. She stated she works with many households that have a lot of pets, and overall, the animals are well managed and well cared for. She stated the ability to care for an animal was a function of time, energy, money, love, knowledge, education, and physical space. She noted those factors varied greatly from household to household, and she did not believe Council could choose an arbitrary number that would work for everyone. She stated she was pleased to hear there was only one small area in San Rafael where there was a problem that sounded as though it was out of control, noting we needed to get resources to that area to solve the problem. Ms. Heinneman reported she works with an animal shelter outside the immediate area, where there are 80 cats at one residential location, and the animals are all enclosed and managed; however, the community also provides support to that organization. She felt there should be a way to hear the concerns of this part of the community, and a way to funnel resources to solve a problem that does not really need to involve a Citywide Ordinance that creates administrative hassles, such as funding and enforcement questions. She noted this was a single area of difficulty, and there should be enough creativity to funnel into the area to solve the problems. Ms. Heinneman stated she was willing to volunteer her support and expertise in the fields of animal husbandry, behavior, and psychology, noting there had to be a way to solve the problems for this community. She stated she would like to see the City of San Rafael adopt a spay and neuter policy for all free -roaming cats. Helen Tyrell -Smith, resident of the affected neighborhood, stated the neighbors would not be addressing the Council if they did not think there was a terrible problem. She stated the issue was not the cats Ms. Bury keeps inside her house, but the free -roaming cats, of which there are plenty, at all times. She reported the cats are not kept in, noting one night she went upstairs to her bedroom and found one of the cats in her house. She stated they were unable to get the cat out of the house, and called Ms. Bury, but when she arrived, Ms. Bury stated she could not get the cat out of the house because it was too wild. Mrs. Tyrell -Smith reported the cats are also out late at night and early in the morning, fighting, making noise, and keeping people awake. Wendy Shennay, a former resident who grew up in San Rafael, stated she was very much opposed to the proposed animal keeping amendments, as written. She felt if Council was going to limit the number of household cats, wording should be included that would impose limits only on free -roaming cats, with a sterilization requirement included, so multi -cat households would not be penalized for responsibly keeping most of the cats contained. Ms. Shennay stated indoor cats, or those contained by special fencing, cat runs, or screened porches, generally did not cause a nuisance for the neighbors, or a significant impact on the environment. She believed the limits on household cats were much too restrictive, and would not effectively address the issues of nuisance complaints and adverse environmental impacts. She stated, if passed, the amendments would cause many more pets to be abandoned, and not sheltered, thereby adding to the problem of pet overpopulation, which would lead to more environmental impact and nuisance complaints, as well as suffering. Ms. Shennay did not believe this was a humane or sensible approach, as multi -pet households often provide much needed homes without causing any problems. In addition, she felt a higher limit would better reflect the community, as it was not uncommon for households to include more than three pets. Ms. Shennay stated denying use permits at the sole whim of the Community Development Director, and allowing for additional, as yet unstated, requirements was unfair, and she believed existing humane health and safety codes could be used, as needed, for any individual case. Ms. Shennay stated she was familiar with the multi -cat household addressed in the staff report, reporting all adult cats on the property were already sterilized; in addition, the few adult hunters typically brought in rodents, which was actually a benefit to the neighborhood. Ms. Shennay stated that during the past twenty years this pet owner had received no nuisance complaints about the cats from the neighbors, noting many of the neighbors own cats that are allowed to roam free. Ms. Shennay stated the cat owner had gone to great lengths, and considerable expense, to install SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 15 special fencing and a cat run, and she was now containing almost all the cats, and very few of the cats were free -roaming. Ms. Shennay stated animal keeping codes affected virtually everyone in the community, and their dear pets, and she urged Council to consider this matter thoroughly. Bob Semple, resident of San Rafael, reported he had contacted the San Rafael Police Department, and they gave him the Municipal Code concerning dog owners leaving piles on the street in front of his house. He asked if that Code could be enforced? Mr. Semple stated 75 cats was a long way from 3 cats, and even 6, 8, or 10 cats might be reasonable on a large property, if the animals were contained, and fecal matter was regularly cleaned -up. He believed the pet owners should be held responsible for any feces dropped on property not owned or operated by the animal owner. Christina Bradley, resident of San Rafael, asked whether the City could define what qualifies as a cat rescue organization, or if it was locked into the State's definition, and, if the City could define a cat rescue organization, could it then change the zoning in that area? Mayor Boro stated the problem was not rescuing the cats, the real issue was the impact on the quality of life of the neighbors. Harry Collette, resident of San Rafael, asked first to read the remarks of Cynthia Cole into the record. Mayor Boro agreed. Mr. Collette quoted, " It has been 42 years that I have lived in our home in Terra Linda. The past 20 years I have been harassed by a neighbor's animals damaging my property, rabbits running loose in the streets and in my yard, not only bunny rabbits, but Belgian Hares that are large and voracious eaters. The Humane Society proved to be of no help at that time. The person in Ordinances (Community Development Department) at City Hall put off my problem all summer long, until my written list of damages, i.e., list of flowers and plants, exceeded the cost of a permit needed for one to keep rabbits. My loss was over $100. Replacement costs were verified at the nurseries where I purchased them. Cats have run rampant in and around my yard and property, using garden paths or any surface as a litter box for many years. The stench is overpowering. The quail have gone, many birds no longer nest in our trees, cats sit waiting on my roof to capture a bird. Police were called when the neighbor came into my yard. I was told I could make a citizen's arrest, as trespassing is a misdemeanor. This was fairly recently, and was at 1:30 AM to 2:00 AM. She was accompanied by another woman calling herself a cat rescue, and accused me with doing away with cats, and threatened me by saying I was being watched. The time is long overdue to limit the number of pets in any household, in a residential area such as this". Mr. Collette stated he lives two doors away from the house in question, noting both of their houses back up to open space, and he has looked out and counted twenty cats sitting on the hillside. He reported there were no squirrels in their neighborhood, and no rabbits, quail, chipmunks, or wildlife one would expect in an open space area, pointing out no one can have that many cats and expect young wildlife to survive. He stated the cats are destructive, noting when someone tries to put out landscaping, they use it as a litter box and scratch up the plants. He reported they also damage property, noting there are heating pipes with foam insulation on them that run over his house, and some of his neighbors' houses, and the cats use the insulation as scratching posts. He stated he has to go up on his roof every summer and replace the insulation. Referring to the earlier statement that the cats are all contained, he noted there had been four of them under his car just this morning. There being no further public discussion, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro noted Council was attempting to deal with an extraordinary situation in a particular neighborhood, and whether a Citywide Ordinance was the best way to go was still in question. He directed the City Attorney's office to return to Council after pursuing the issue of abatement as a Nuisance, and if the City Attorney's office did not believe the City could prevail in such an action, then the City can review the Ordinance in more detail, and look at alternative numbers. Mayor Boro noted he had not heard anyone who was in favor of cats state they would be happy to live next door to a home that had 75 cats, especially if they were running wild. He believed Council had an obligation to the people who live in the community, and at the same time had to respect the rights of people who want to have and care for cats. Mayor Boro stated Council did not intend to have any type of "police state", as was mentioned in earlier SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 16 comments, noting Council was trying to find a way to remedy a conflict in the neighborhood. He stated if mediation would work in the intervening time, while the City Attorney's office was reviewing the issue, staff could help with the mediation, if someone was willing to intervene and do that. However, he felt it sounded as though the situation was beyond mediation. Mayor Boro stated the first thing he would ask would be for the City to pursue the issue of abatement of the nuisance. In addition, he would like some dialogue with the County Health Department, and possibly with County Supervisors, to find why this does not constitute a health nuisance, why they cannot deal with the source, and why they feel they cannot deal with the issue if the source is spreading droppings all over the neighborhood. Mayor Boro noted, especially if the City is going to consider enacting an Ordinance, he would like a review of the role of the Humane Society, stating he did not believe the City's Code Enforcement Officers should be enforcing an Animal Control Ordinance of any type. He stated the City pays over $300,000 per year to the Humane Society, and he would look for them to enforce any Ordinance the City might adopt. Councilmember Heller agreed this issue did impact the quality of life of the neighbors, noting she had driven by the subject house, and saw five cats on the street. She stated she had spoken with several people from the neighborhood, and asked each of them to try to suggest solutions to this problem. She reported one of the things they had discussed was if the City did limit the number of pets, perhaps it could be mix and match, with an overall limit on the number of total animals, but not necessarily only three of any one type of animal. She felt that for the people who wanted more than three cats, this would not be such a hardship. Ms. Heller questioned the cost of the permit, noting she understood it represented the City's cost, but asked if perhaps it would be of greater benefit to the entire community if the City made it a lower cost? She stated she was not sure why people were unhappy with the fact that we needed something as a "baseline" law, and that the City did not intend to focus on people who did not impact the community. Ms. Heller stated she would also like staff to look at the issue of a spay and neuter policy, particularly if the City decides to address only the issue of free -roaming cats. She believed there were many ramifications the City would have to take into consideration, noting she sympathized with the neighbors and did not believe they should have to live with this situation; however, she also felt bad for Ms. Bury, noting she was trying to do a wonderful thing for the community, taking full responsibility for stray cats in the City. Councilmember Phillips stated he tended to agree with Mayor Boro's practical approach to this matter, and felt looking at alternatives made sense. He believed the proposed Ordinance was a bit of a "sledgehammer" for this situation, and while it clearly needed to be addressed, he felt the Ordinance was out of context. He noted staff had made every attempt to address the real issues of the neighbors, and staff should be applauded for taking active steps to bring this to Council, in order to address the very real concern of the neighbors. Mr. Phillips believed indoor cats were quite unique in some ways, causing virtually no impact to the neighbors; therefore, he felt the proposed Ordinance seemed out of context, noting he would support Mayor Boro's recommendation to ask staff to come back with something that would work. He also felt it was unrealistic to expect the neighbors to work together to find a solution, although it would probably work better than imposing City Ordinances involving zoning and the Humane Society, which he felt were weaker approaches. Councilmember Cohen stated he could not support the proposed Ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission and staff, noting he felt the number was too low, and there were many other issues that would have to be resolved. In addition, he was not convinced adopting a Citywide Ordinance was the appropriate way to deal with one intolerable situation, given it was the only instance the City had heard about. However, he was not willing to simply put this off, look at other issues, and hope that somehow the neighbors would get together and work it out. He noted he had no idea what a Judge might conclude, but after reading the record, and from what he had heard during the public comment, he was convinced this situation was a Public Nuisance, it was injurious to the adjacent property owners, and constituted a threat to public health and safety, and he wanted the City to pursue that. He noted if the City was told by a Judge that this was beyond the scope of the City's powers, and the Judge did not agree the testimony established a Public Nuisance, which the City could order abated, then the City would look for another way to pursue the issue. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 17 Mr. Cohen stated it was clear to him that this was a Public Nuisance, and if the City has to go to Court to have it abated, he wanted staff to proceed to do that. He noted if that did not work, and a Court denied the City the ability to abate it, and if it took a Citywide Ordinance to give the City the power to regulate this, he would be open to an Ordinance that had higher limits, and perhaps had more specifics written into it, such as how someone would apply for and receive a permit, and provisions concerning free -roaming cats. Mr. Cohen stated he was not swayed by the argument that Administrative Permit approvals were arbitrary and capricious, although he did agree there should be guidelines so people would know how to apply for and receive a permit. In addition, he felt it should be made clear that Administrative Permits can be appealed, whether they are approved or denied, through the Planning Commission, and ultimately to the Council, so there is public recourse in any permitting process. He stated he would rather see the City deal with the immediate situation, and if we are not able to do so in the Courts, then consider an Ordinance. He noted testimony had been given that the Health Department stated they agreed the situation was unsafe, but they were powerless. Mr. Cohen believed the City could, with the assistance of the neighbors, gather the appropriate testimony to establish that this was a hazardous situation, and proceed to abate it. Councilmember Cohen stated he did not agree with the conclusion that this particular property owner was doing a wonderful thing. He noted he was not advocating that cats be killed, although there were probably thousands who end up suffering that fate because of irresponsible pet owners, and perhaps the City should explore regulations concerning spaying and neutering. He pointed out this situation addressed a problem of an admitted number of 75 cats, and Council had heard the testimony of approximately fifteen people. He suggested if each of those people had a friend who viewed the situation as they did, and each of them took two cats, the neighbors would not have the problem, and all 75 cats would have a nice home to live in. He stated there were other ways to keep those 75 cats alive, rather than saying either the neighbors had to deal with the situation, or the cats all had to be killed. He stated it was not just a black and white situation, if everyone wanted to step up and help. He noted an earlier comment that the City should focus its resources on this problem; however, he disagreed, noting the City should disperse the problem. In the meantime, if discussions and solutions were not forthcoming, he believed Council should take action to defend its constituents, and if the City had to go to Court to do that, he would advocate doing so. Councilmember Miller stated he agreed with Councilmember Cohen's views. City Manager Gould clarified the consensus of the Council was for staff to commence the investigation to determine the facts of this particular case in North San Rafael, and determine whether or not the County Health Department can be of any assistance to the City in pursuing a Nuisance Abatement action. If it appears likely that will succeed, staff is to commence that action; if it does not appear likely, staff is to return to Council for further direction concerning whether or not an Ordinance is necessary. He noted if an Ordinance is again considered, Council would like some discussion as to whether or not the Humane Society can play a role in enforcement, and would also like additional information regarding spay and neutering policies, the distinction between roaming and indoor cats, and whether this distinction can really be made. Mayor Boro concurred, noting that while the Council was interested in the City working with the Public Health Department, if that did not succeed, staff should pursue the issue of abating this as a Nuisance. Councilmember Cohen stated he hoped Council would not have to consider this Ordinance again, but if that should be the case, he would like staff's recommendations to reflect the testimony that had been heard tonight, particularly the comments that 3 was too low a number, and reflect an upward adjustment of that number. Councilmember Heller also asked that the language in such an Ordinance be changed from "pet owner" to "guardian". Mayor Boro stated this item would be continued, noting the neighbors and all interested parties would be notified when the item comes back before Council. Mayor Boro announced there would be a brief recess. SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 18 Mayor Boro reconvened the meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 17. PRESENTATION BY MARIN HOUSING COUNCIL ON RECOMMENDATION RE: RENTAL HOUSING CRISIS IN MARIN COUNTY (CD/RA) - File 13-16 x 229 Betty Pagett, Executive Director of Marin Ecumenical Housing, addressed the rental housing crisis. She reported on December 15, 1998 the Housing Council presented a paper to the Marin County Board of Supervisors, sitting as the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority, and they endorsed and supported that paper. She stated the paper calls for all jurisdictions to recognize a rental housing emergency, and to prepare and implement plans for making affordable rental housing a priority in every jurisdiction. Ms. Pagett stated the Workforce Housing Consortium was very grateful San Rafael had taken the leadership in affordable housing in Marin County, having developed policies that actually create housing. Ms. Pagett reported she received telephone calls from a senior who had been in the same rental complex for twenty years and just received a $200 increase; and from someone who has been a chef in the County for thirty years. She also received a call from a single -parent with a son in high school, whose landlord stated he knew she could not pay any more for rent, and asked her to leave because he could get more in rent, suggesting she and her son move to Novato or Petaluma. Ms. Pagett stated those kinds of decisions have impacted peoples' lives, as people do not have time with their families, it increases the Highway 101 traffic, and there are no longer affordable places for our workforce. She reported that with the Urban Growth Boundaries in Sonoma and Novato, and with their own increased costs for housing, those locations were no longer more affordable than Marin County. Ms. Pagett stated when they first began addressing this in the Housing Council, they had been discussing their clients; however, they have now had three Executive Directors affected by San Rafael's housing crisis, noting one instance had involved a second unit problem, in which one of the Directors had been living in Gerstle Park for over sixteen years, and was asked to leave. Ms. Pagett stated this crisis hits a number of levels across the County, and people have nowhere to go. Ms. Pagett stated one of the things they would like Council to consider before the changes in the Housing Element would be to change the inclusionary zoning rental requirements from 80% of median to no more than 65% of median. She explained that with median income now being so high, when they serve people at 80% of median in rental, they are charging market rents. She stated she knew the City wanted its affordable units to be affordable, and although it was hard to state, she noted they would rather have fewer units at real affordability than more units which were not really affordable. She stated this was a major consideration, acknowledging it would be hard to change Development Agreements the City had already made; however, they hoped, in the future, this would be possible. Ms. Pagett stated inclusionary zoning really could not serve very low- income renters well, which was why there were rental complexes such as Centertown, Edgewater. She urged that opportunities be created in new planning sites, such as P.G.& E., St. Vincent's/Silveira, and those in other parts of the County, where a rental housing complex is included in the planning, so there is a range of housing available. She stated she knew this meant public support would be needed, but noted they would be there to support Council if the City would spread out the rental housing in places such as these. Ms. Pagett reported the area served by the 94903 zip code had two development sites along the Highway 101 corridor which were currently going through the planning process, and would provide 10,000 jobs. She stated having places for people to live near their jobs was part of the solution, not part of the problem, and they hoped to be able to help the Council make that happen. Ms. Pagett stated they hoped to work with Council on the ticklish issue of second units, and hoped housing advocates and the environmental community could work with the City Council and the neighborhoods, discussing what the problems are, more clearly defining exactly what needs to be remediated, and finding ways to support this very crucial source of affordable housing. She pointed out it was crucial to the people who own the homes, many of them seniors, in order to maintain their affordability, as well as offering SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 19 rental units. Ms. Pagett acknowledged there were some streets where this would not be a good idea; however, there were many areas throughout the County where second units were a primary source of affordable housing. She reported in the paper "Community Marin", prepared by the environmental groups, second units were stressed as the major way of addressing affordable housing in Marin County. She stated they hoped to support the Council in getting a broader picture of the second unit problem, and ways other towns may have addressed particular problems, such as parking and traffic. Referring to the problem of radical rent increases, Ms. Pagett stated she had spent time, on behalf of the Housing Council, speaking with some of the County's reputable landlords, as well as with affordable housing lawyers. She noted it did not seem to be appropriate to ask for a Declaration of Emergency, because that called into play different kinds of actions by the City Council, which are more responsive to a fire or earthquake, during which emergency shelters are set up, and certain zoning codes are not enforced for specific periods of time. She stated that would not address the real problem, which is that we need more housing stock. Ms. Pagett stated many families and seniors were being adversely affected and destabilized. She distributed copies of an Ordinance the City of Fremont had enacted, which sets up a mediation process, acknowledging that unless it has clout, the approach would be limited; however, she felt it was appropriate for the City Council to have a way to respond to people who are in situations where landlords who are more focused on making money than being in the housing business can be brought in and talked to, and have some kind of plan worked out. Ms. Pagett stated both the Fair Housing Authority and County Mediation were overwhelmed with cases coming forward, and trying to work with landlords. She reported they knew the locations of some of the places being administered in ways that were detrimental to the residents, and they felt some kind of response by Council would be appropriate. Mayor Boro stated he had recently spoken with San Rafael Chamber of Commerce President Elissa Giambastiani regarding the 60% to 65% range, and the issue of buying -down the interest to accomplish that. He noted they had also discussed the role of the Marin Community Foundation, and asked, since all the cities would be going through updates to their General Plans and housing elements, if there was some way we could talk with the Foundation about creating some kind of fund that would be used expressly for this purpose? As an example, if affordable housing was achieved at the 80% rate, perhaps the Foundation could contribute to that, and bring it down to 65%, with the idea in mind that their contribution would keep this in perpetuity, or at least 40 years. He noted this could be on a planned basis, not based on where the units are, but rather on a Countywide basis, and as the units become available, there would be a fund that could be tapped. Ms. Pagett stated one of the major issues was availability of local financing, because very few towns have redevelopment agencies, or the money for this kind of thing. She noted there has been discussion of a Housing Trust Fund, and that could be one of the functions of the Fund. She reported the Foundation's concern was how such a fund would be monitored, noting one of the problems with below market rate rental units was that there had not been much of a process for monitoring them. Ms. Pagett stated another way they could work to bring down those 80% units would be to ask that Section 8's be accepted. She reported that currently, 52% of those who receive Section 8's are not able to find a place that will take them within their allotted period of time; therefore, they lose their Section 8, and their place on the list. Ms. Pagett reported Section 8's have been a major way to help families in California find affordable housing when they are below 50% of median income; however, this was no longer working, and not just in Marin County, although Marin had the highest rate of inability to find a landlord who will accept a Section 8. She believed this would be one of the major ways we could act right now to have units served at a lower income, with the landlord still getting full market rent. Mayor Boro believed there were numerous ways it could be demonstrated to the Marin Community Foundation that they could monitor and enforce a fund, and he did not see that as being a restraint to the suggestion. Regarding Section 8 housing, Mayor Boro stated this type of housing did have a different connotation, and to date, when the Chamber of Commerce has addressed the issue of housing, they have been discussing workforce housing, for people with an income stream. Ms. Pagett explained many of the people with Section 8's have an income stream. Mayor Boro acknowledged some of them did, but pointed out there was still a connotation with SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 20 Section 8 housing. Referring to the issue of obtaining housing at 65% of median, he noted he did not like to hear Ms. Pagett have to say she would rather have fewer units than more, in order to achieve that level. Mayor Boro stated he felt both could be achieved, especially if we had a partner who had already stated they want to help. He suggested perhaps representatives from each town should get together and meet with the Foundation, and tell the Foundation what the cities need to achieve this goal. Councilmember Cohen stated it would be great if we could establish a funding source, but absent the ability to do so, he wondered if Ms. Pagett was asking the City to change its inclusionary zoning provisions for rental housing, dropping it from 80% to 65%, and not increase the percentage or give bonuses, but simply state that even at the standard 10% of market rate housing, rentals should be targeted at low-income, as opposed to moderate income? Ms. Pagett explained 80% was the top of low-income, which was how they had come up with their figure. She pointed out the original intent had been to keep it at a range of 51% to 80%, and targeting it at 80% was the very top of low-income. Therefore, the City would not be changing the category, rather it would be bringing it into a wider range. Mr. Cohen noted the existing H-20 specifies, "Residential projects of 10 or more lots/units shall be required to provide at least 10% of their units affordable to moderate -income households at 80% to 100% of median income for at least 40 years". Ms. Pagett stated this was not really working in the case of rental units, because median income had gone up so high it was creating units which were renting at market rate. She recalled a moment in the P.G.& E. hearings when the owner of the Merrydale Apartments was asked if he had been required to have inclusionary units, and he responded he did, and had several at $1,300. She stated this did not make sense as a plan for creating affordable housing, especially while the market is so high. Mayor Boro asked if, at one point, 80% was affordable, why was that not still affordable, noting if 80% of the people were now making 80% of the salary, they should be able to afford 80% of the market rate. Ms. Pagett stated that since a family had to earn three times the rent, their income would have to be $3,900 per month to qualify for a $1,300 per month apartment. She asked if that was really how the Council wanted to use its public policy? Mayor Boro asked if Ms. Pagett was stating that with the way the market was going, there were fewer people who qualified for 80% of median because of the wages that are being paid? Ms. Pagett stated that was correct, noting if the Council wanted to serve the workforce of Marin County, they were going to have to lower that amount, so people who earn less will be able to rent. Councilmember Cohen reported there was a group of people who were very vocal about their concerns regarding second units, noting they had gone to great pains to stress they were addressing illegal units. Mr. Cohen stated even though there was a time when it seemed unthinkable, environmental groups have come forward in favor of projects when they are done on in -fill lists that San Rafael has pursued. He noted that while it may be easier to create an ongoing funding stream, buying -down rentals from 80% to 65%, he wondered whether they had approached some of these people to see if there was some common ground regarding types of units that would be acceptable, or to discuss ways to condition second units so they did not have the kinds of impacts Council has heard testimony about? He believed this might be a real help, otherwise, the Council ends up taking actions that are too narrow, and do not satisfy the people who are complaining, so the complaints continue, or we end up with policies that are overly broad and impact good housing stock. Mr. Cohen suggested Ms. Pagett contact the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, who has taken up this issue as its cause, and try to discuss this with them. Ms. Pagett stated the Workforce Housing Consortium was now beginning that phase of its work, meeting with neighborhood associations. She reported they would also be meeting with the Marin Conservation League, to make certain they really wanted to stand behind their paper, and support this. Elissa Giambastiani, President of the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated they were planning to go back to the Foundation and review this issue again. She noted the Consortium had also been discussing how they could develop a trust fund, and one of the activities they were going to be taking part in shortly would be starting a Housing Leadership Council, similar to the one in Silicon Valley, where they have many large companies, and have enlisted the help of many CEO's, environmentalists, and elected officials. She reported not only were they working on trying to create a trust fund, they had also designated $20 million which they would try to raise during the coming year. She reported they had also begun working on SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 21 State legislation, noting that was also in the Consortium's plans. Ms. Giambastiani reported they planned to meet with the Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, and the San Rafael Coalition of Residents within the next month, and one of the things they hoped to discuss regarding second units was what the impact would be. She believed most of the impact was caused by the cars, noting they needed to look at whether there were more people, or more cars. She stated it was her feeling this problem would soon be Citywide, and we were going to find more people living in homes in Terra Linda, Loch Lomond, and Peacock Gap as the housing prices keep increasing. Ms. Giambastiani stated she had applied to be on the Governor's Statewide Taskforce on Housing, and while she did not know if she would be accepted or not, she believed San Rafael's Chamber of Commerce was one of the few business organizations in the State that had really addressed this issue. Therefore, she was hoping this might be a possibility, noting it would be nice to look at the issues Statewide, and discuss how to get a permanent stream of funding for affordable housing. Dirck Brinckerhoff, Housing Advocate, referred to the questions Mayor Boro and Councilmember Cohen had asked concerning why they were requesting to go lower than 80% of median. He noted he had only realized a month or so ago that the median income was somewhat circular, and it kept going up, explaining median income was the income of the residents in a town, it was not necessarily the income of the workforce, particularly in Marin County. Therefore, he stated if Marin County was going to have housing that was affordable to the workforce, it had to be affordable to people with drastically lower income than the median income, and that was why they were looking for something near 50% of median. Leslie Klor, Seniors Advocate, stated she was a twenty-five year resident of Gerstle Park, and also the Director of Information at Whistlestop Senior Center. She reported the senior population in Marin County was approximately 44,000, and by the year 2020, one in three residents of Marin County would be seniors over the age of 60, and Marin County would have the oldest median age of any county in California. She stated we had to take note of the senior population, pointing out this was not all an affluent community, as people seem to think it is. She reported she works with seniors every day, some who have an annual income of less than $18,000 per year, and are living on $500 - $600 per month. She stated the issue of housing was of premiere interest to seniors in Marin County, along with the issue of transportation. Ms. Klor reported there was a housing counselling program at Whistlestop, so seniors can call and be put in touch with someone who can help them navigate the housing maze in the County; however, she noted it was very discouraging, and the counsellors usually have to tell people there is no affordable housing. Ms. Klor also reported the wait for any of the senior housing residences is from one to three years. She pointed out the seniors did not want to leave the County, as many of them have lived here a number of years, and raised their families here. Ms. Klor believed it was important to discuss how to expand the current housing market, not by building new units, but by considering second units. She stated she was very upset by the people who have taken up the issue of second units as a cause, making it tougher and tougher for people to live in these kinds of environments. She noted most of the people she was aware of who were taking up the cause were not personally affected, and that distressed her greatly. She stated we had to discuss expanding the current housing market, and she encouraged seniors, if they did not want to go to a nursing home, to see if they could rent a room, have someone come and live in their home, and possibly even do an exchange for services, such as cooking meals or driving, in return for having someone in the house and not having to go to a nursing home. As another option, she noted that while they were trying to encourage seniors to rent out parts of their home, we also needed second units to be made available to seniors, so they can afford to live in the County. Ms. Klor urged Council to not forget about seniors, noting if, in the year 2020, one out of three people was going to be over the age of 60, with the most rapidly aging group 70 to 75 plus, this issue was something that could not be ignored. She stated the workforce was one thing, but the seniors who have been living here, paying taxes, and owning homes for years were really in a sad state. John Reynolds, First United Methodist Church, representing Marin Family SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 22 Action, stated they were supportive of affordable housing, and trying to prepare people to actually purchase first units in Marin County and stay here, at such locations as Hamilton Field. He stated they also represented approximately 800 people who needed some place to be now, acknowledging rentals were very important. He noted they have talked to people representing a wide range of income levels, from $15,000 to $40,000, single and disabled people, who are looking for rentals they can get into while they are waiting for an affordable unit they can purchase. He stated they supported workforce and senior housing. Ms. Pagett stated the Housing Council would be happy to become a partner with the City, moving ahead in any way the City might designate. She hoped there might be ways in which City staff might be available to other towns, as a resource, because San Rafael had a lot more experience than any of the other towns around. She felt if the Housing Council were to encourage other towns to take up their responsibility, then some kind of technical assistance, mentoring, and consulting, especially at the onset of some of the programs, would be very valuable. She hoped some kind of staff assignment could be made, so they could continue to work with the City, and bring further proposals to Council. Mayor Boro felt this would be agreeable, within reason, stating San Rafael would be more than happy to help other cities. He noted he had seen dialogue in the newspaper concerning one of the Housing Council's presentations, and he did not understand the restraint that had been shown concerning inclusionary zoning. He stated he intended to discuss that with the individual involved, noting some of those issues could be overcome with a density bonus, achieving inclusionary zoning and low-cost housing. Ms. Pagett reported most of the communities in Marin County did have inclusionary zoning. Community Development Director Bob Brown noted Ms. Pagett had discussed reducing rentals from 80% of median to 65%, and explained that reflected 1998 dollars. He stated a two-bedroom apartment for a family of three, at 80% of median, could rent for $1,240 per month, which was not much different than market rate; at 65% that same unit would rent for $1,003 per month. Mr. Brown stated the level of subsidy for ownership housing was great; however, the subsidy for rental housing, at 80%, was minimal, or none at all. Mayor Boro felt Mr. Brinckerhoff's comments were very telling, when put in perspective, noting the median does measure the income of the people who live here, and in many cases, is much higher than for the people who work here. Mayor Boro stated the City was trying to target those who work here, trying to find a way to have them live close to their jobs and not have to commute. Mayor Boro thanked Ms. Pagett, Ms. Giambastiani, Mr. Brinckerhoff, and Ms. Klor for their presentations to Council. He stated San Rafael would continue to work with them toward achieving more than the City's fair share of affordable housing in this community. 18. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SOFTWARE PURCHASE FROM ESCOM FOR RECREATION SOFTWARE (CM/CS) - File 4-2-295 x 9-3-65 Assistant City Manager Kenneth Nordhoff reported this report was a multi- departmental effort, prepared by Financial Services, Information Services, and Falkirk staff, and spearheaded by Bill Scharf, Assistant Recreation Director, and Don Streeper, Senior Supervisor, who studied replacing the 1984 Recreation package. He recalled when staff came before Council in 1997 with the Five -Year Strategic Plan, one of those items had been to do what is being proposed this evening. Bill Scharf, Assistant Recreation Director, reported they have been using the same BRC system to manage the Recreation Program client data base for the past 15 years, noting the system was outdated, and they had never really had much satisfaction with it. He stated it was increasingly difficult to manage the data base, and it did not have the sophistication or productivity enhancing capabilities of current technology, noting the rentals for facilities were still done manually, using a three-ring binder to log in rentals. Recognizing that similar sized recreation and community services departments have, for years, had automated class registration and rentals of facilities, staff set out to find a comprehensive software package that would meet the needs of the new Community Services Department. He stated the ultimate goal of the project was not technological, but was based on a goal to improve customer service and satisfaction. He stated the implementation of a state of the art software system would enable customers to be registered for programs with increased speed and accuracy, and would offer the convenience of using the telephone to register for programs twenty-four hours per day, provide a network system for the rental of facilities throughout the City, and provide demographic information SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 23 necessary to expand programs and services to the public. Councilmember Cohen asked if anyone had implemented a WEB portion to the system, noting ten years ago, having people be able to sign up twenty-four hours a day by telephone would have been cutting edge; however, today there were enough people who would like to be able to log on and sign-up by computer. Mr. Cohen noted it would appear, given the framework in which this system operates, that this could be done, and asked if that had been considered? Mr. Nordhoff stated this had been considered as part of the proposal; however, when the proposals were broken down, the WEB portion was included in Phase III; therefore, it was seen as an option later on. He explained they wanted to get the primary products in place during Phase I; such things as sports scheduling, day camps, and telephone automation would be done in Phase II; and the WEB page component would be done during Phase III. He noted that as they went through the bids for the process, the vendor pointed out they were refining their WEB interface, and believed the product would be much improved, and at a lesser cost for that phase, within the next six to nine months. Councilmember Heller asked if, with this new system, they would be able to register people at City Hall at the Mall and the Library during Phase I? Mr. Scharf reported that would probably be available in approximately one year, explaining the system would run over the City's network, so this could be done after the three Community Centers were networked together. She asked if this would also be available in the Library? Mr. Scharf stated if the Library was networked with the City system they could; however, he did not believe the Library was going to be part of the City's network. Mr. Nordhoff explained the installation being proposed involved the three Community Centers and Falkirk, because they functioned in a programming and rental environment, while the Library did not. However, he stated that since it would be on the network, there would be opportunities to expand to any potential sites we might choose. Ms. Heller stated she would like to see that as a goal in the future, so the public would be able to register from almost any location. Councilmember Cohen suggested staff look at having this available at City Hall at the Mall before the Library, because more of those kinds of services, offered at City Hall at the Mall, would be a good first step. Mayor Boro noted when the City agreed to migrate from BRC, the reason was so the City could be in control, and run our own software; however, now it sounded as though we were just bringing in another vendor to create software, which we still would not run, rather it would be run under a license fee. He stated he was not opposing the proposal, but wanted to reconcile the City's migration away from BRC and going to this, which seemed a lot like BRC. Mr. Nordhoff stated a lot of what the BRC staff did while they were here on a contract basis was actual programming, so they were acting, in essence, as ESCOM is, as a third party vendor, and developing products as we went along. Therefore, if a Department such as Recreation came in with a request, the programmers were down the hall making those modifications. With this proposal, the City would be paying a standard licensing and ongoing maintenance fee to have people off-site do that. He explained we would have a standard product, used by multiple cities, and we would have much more benefit from that exposure. He stated there would also be a lot of input, noting there are user groups which meet and help frame where the product goes, so the City would not have to carry that full burden, which was what we used to do under BRC. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Phillips seconded, to adopt the Resolution authorizing the purchase of software and services from ESCOM Software Services Ltd. RESOLUTION NO. 10367 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AND ESCOM SOFTWARE SERVICES LTD. (for Community Services). AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None 19. REPORT ON Y2K ISSUE (CM) -File 249 x 9-3-20 Assistant City Manager Kenneth Nordhoff reported Assistant Director of Information Services Eusebio Joves has been working diligently on this issue for the past several months, with a sub -committee of people from multiple departments. Mr. Nordhoff noted staff was actively involved in Countywide efforts, and would be watching closely over the next several months to make certain all City systems are Y2K compliant, to the greatest extent possible. He pointed out this was like preparing for a flood or an SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 24 earthquake, in that everyone wants to take steps to be as prepared as we possibly can be. Mr. Nordhoff stated Mr. Joves and the members of his committee had done an outstanding job, although the City has a fair amount of work ahead. Mr. Nordhoff pointed out Council had set aside $100,000 at the last Council meeting, so there were some contingency funds, and he noted they would be using those funds for some of these issues. Mayor Boro asked why it cost $15,000 to upgrade the parking system, compared to some of the other components? Mr. Nordhoff explained the proposal from the vendor includes software cost as well as upgrading all the hand-held devices used by the meter readers. Mayor Boro asked Mr. Joves, on a scale of one to ten, how comfortable he was at this point? Mr. Joves stated he would rate our current position as a nine. Mr. Joves stated he believed the City would be Y2K compliant around July. Mayor Boro reported some agencies had fiscal years that began in April, others in July, and the Federal government in October. He felt, from a financial point of view, there were a lot of things that should be rolling out as the year goes on, noting we would be learning from some of those instances as we go. Mr. Nordhoff stated that was a reasonable assumption. He pointed out banks used to use 9/9/99 to delete everything, so September 9th might be a very interesting date. Mr. Nordhoff noted there would be increment dates as we go through the balance of the year. Councilmember Heller asked about Public Works, pointing out that was a huge field to try to determine whether everything would be all right, and there were many different areas in which imbedded computer chips were used, including traffic lights, and pumps. Public Works Director Bernardi reported they were currently looking at the imbedded chips, and felt fairly comfortable that we would be all right. He stated the biggest concern was lack of power, noting if the grid goes down, we would need to have back-up power. He reported the storm water pump stations would all have back-up power by the end of this year, and the traffic signal systems had default programs that would revert them back to 1968. He noted we may have to replace a master traffic signal controller at Second and Irwin Streets, but that was not an urgent item at this point. Mr. Bernardi stated another issue we would have to deal with was fuel, noting we could have all the generators running, and would have to provide a contingency plan for refueling them if power at the gas stations is down, particularly if that were to last for a couple of days. He reported the City would have a 5,000 gallon fuel tank at the Corporation Yard for normal, everyday purposes, enabling us to keep the Fire Engines and Police cars running. He stated we might also need to have a contingency plan where the City purchases a tanker load of fuel, and have the truck parked at the Corporation yard, just in case. Councilmember Heller asked if the entire County was beginning to look at this problem? Mr. Bernardi stated that was correct, reporting staff had attended a seminar last week, put on by the Office of Emergency Services. He reported they had received a lot of good information, which would be distributed to City employees, noting not only did our employees need to prepare for their own homes, but also, as ambassadors and representatives of local government, they needed to get the word out to our constituents to be prepared, but not to panic. Councilmember Cohen thanked staff for their comprehensive report, stating he would like to continue receiving updates regarding this issue, as there were some critical dates coming up. Mr. Cohen referred to the Core Financials, noting the proposal was to use BRC to write the necessary program changes, and asked if this would require a lot of work, and whether it involved remedial work? Mr. Nordhoff reported it had been remedial work to this point in time, noting they had finished with the financial and Police information, which now needed to be tested. Mr. Nordhoff explained this was covered under a licensing fee the City pays to use their software, so it has been a negligible cost. Mr. Cohen asked if they would certify the work was compliant when they are finished? Mr. Nordhoff stated they would. Regarding Facilities and Equipment, Mr. Cohen asked if staff was confident the City would be able to inventory these areas? He noted he was concerned with the timeline, stating the City had to start making some of those targets, because we did not even know what we had, as yet, let alone figured out what the risk was. He felt this was the one area where it seemed the dates were a little "shaky". Mr. Nordhoff stated there have SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 25 been several discussions with Frank Prim, Deputy Public Works Director/Maintenance Operations, and Scott Clark, Facility Repair Supervisor, noting they felt this issue could be moved back a little, to allow staff to get past some of the higher priority public safety issues. Mr. Nordhoff pointed out staff did not feel facility, elevator, generator type issues were potentially as big a problem as other things might be; however, they did plan to have that area fully assessed by the end of March. Councilmember Cohen asked about the Fire Department, noting there was a lot of Fire equipment, and at this time, recommendations were pending full assessment, and the projected cost was unknown. He asked if this was just a matter of inventorying what we have? Mr. Nordhoff stated many items were scheduled for replacement, as part of the budget Council had already approved. He noted some of the other equipment was under assessment because of its age, and staff was working with the vendors, trying to get a handle on whether we really have a situation there, or not. Mr. Nordhoff did not believe they would be waiting until April 1st to get answers in this area, noting he believed they would have that assessed sooner. He stated it was staff's intention to use the Assessment Document and Action Plan as a working tool, and provide Council with updates as frequently as they would like them. Mayor Boro noted he had heard the comments of someone who was working on Y2K compliance for another agency, who related they had run into a situation where they found certain Fire Engine equipment would not start. Mr. Nordhoff stated staff was aware there were a couple diesel type Fire Engines that might potentially have embedded chips that could cause problems. He noted that was one of the items on staff's list, and they were working on it. Mr. Joves stated devices for the Fire Department were 90% compliant, with the exception of the diesel engine, which he explained could not be tested. He noted an alternative plan was to replace the chip. Regarding banks, Councilmember Cohen felt they should be in a position to give the City some indication of where they are regarding this issue. He noted Mr. Nordhoff was suggesting the City look at making a decision to change banks in June. Mr. Nordhoff stated that was correct. Mr. Cohen agreed, stating if they could not tell us by June, with confidence, that they knew what they were going to be doing, the City did not want to wait until January to change banks. Mr. Nordhoff did not believe the services the City used would create a huge situation for us; however, this would be part of the assessment process, and if necessary, he would take the actions required. Referring to the utilities, Mr. Cohen noted he and Public Works Director Bernardi had already begun to discuss that issue with regard to the San Rafael Sanitation District, and he believed the issue was something that also had to be looked at Citywide. Mr. Cohen acknowledged it made sense, from an operational standpoint, to look at the City's internal areas, move out through the embedded equipment, and then look at external threats. However, he stated he was a little concerned, noting he had no confidence in the utility companies, as he felt they would just as soon not report on their status, because they were afraid anything they said was going to get them sued. Therefore, he did not believe the City could wait for the utility companies to make commitments. He stated he was becoming a little afraid, noting the longer the City waits, the more the available equipment will be snapped up, and he believed the City needed to begin strategizing about what we need to be prepared for, and what we should try to be prepared for. Referring to the San Rafael Sanitation District, he reported they could go for three days without power, noting that was just not good enough, and they were trying to get that up to seven days. Mr. Cohen stated he hoped this would not really become an issue; however, he noted they did not want to have to be explaining why they had not provisioned for more than three days of operation. Regarding Police and Fire, Mr. Cohen stated he was pleased to hear provisions had been made for gasoline, noting we needed to know how we were going to address those basic kinds of issues, and we needed to have those resources sewn up, because the closer we get, everyone else is going to have the same idea. He asked that as soon as staff felt confident they had a handle on the more critical aspects, they move on to this type of contingency planning. Mr. Bernardi reported that at the seminar they attended, a P.G.& E. representative stated they could not guarantee the provision of power, noting they would never make that guarantee under any SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 25 SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 26 circumstance, but even more in this case. He stated P.G.& E. had made assurances they would meet all the PUC requirements to be compliant by November of this year, but they would not guarantee they would have power. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Miller seconded, to accept the report. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Cohen, Heller, Miller, Phillips & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None MONTHLY REPORTS: 20. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT This report was not given. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS: 21. a. DOWNTOWN ART WALK - File 9-2-24 (Verbal) Mayor Boro stated he had been told there was to be a Downtown Art Walk tomorrow night, and the sponsors were hoping some of the Councilmembers might participate. He asked for more information on this event. Assistant City Manager Ken Nordhoff referred to a flyer describing the event as a Tour, Culture and History of San Rafael, on the third Wednesdays from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM. Mayor Boro urged the Councilmembers to attend if they could. b. VALLECITO SCHOOL DONATION TO FREITAS PARK - File 2-1-29 x 12-5 x 9-3- 65 x 9-3-66 (Verbal) Mayor Boro announced the children at Vallecito School would be making a donation to Freitas Park on Friday morning, February 26th, at 9:00 AM, and the children would love to have a Councilmember attend. Councilmembers Miller and Cohen stated they would attend. There being no further business, the City Council meeting was adjourned at 11:30 PM. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1999 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Regular) 2/16/99 Page 26